Our existence is based on a very precise combination of nature constants. If the density of the universe at Big Bang time were a little higher or lower, or if other constants were a little different, heavy elements and thus carbon based life could not exist. In fact 99,9..% of all possible combinations of nature constants would lead to bleak universes without stars, planets, and life. Obviously, we exist nevertheless. Which explanation for this paradox seems the most likely to you?

1. Gott - The universe was created this way by a God who does not require a further explanation for his existence (f.i. because he is eternal).

2. Unbekannter Prozess - The universe was created this way by a yet unknown process (f.i. a self-organizing process).

3. Viele Universen - The Big Bang is not a unique event. So many different universes are created that some of them have to be complex enough to produce life.

4. Zukünftige Theorie - There will be a simple explanation for the nature constants by a future physics theory (f.i. string theory).

maybe eternity aint a timeline but more a flummy ball jumping thru dimensions. As hard it will get to find the starting point of a ball or circle time could be the same.

if time can change depending on speed and mass ... well, ever thought of the big repeat and replay button hidden on planet pluto

the only funny thing (maybe funny aint the right word) is the fact that we accept something called god to be eternal (since i still havent found a tag on him saying "made in china") but we denay the possibility that the universe could be as well.

The last article I read about the endlessness of the universe was very interesting. thanks jcl.

I think there can be unicorns because 1. we live in a world with fuzzy logic what means if there is something what looks like a unicorn it is a unicorn and 2. evolution has to do a lot with luck and 3. humans haven´t discovered all secrets of life.

Fuzzy logic means: We see the world not very exactly. For example a big man is wearing a brown jacket. We wouldn´t say a 1,80 to 2 meter big man is wearing a jacket in the color spektrum between 199 to 230 (don´t know if these numbers make sense but something like that).

And ontopic: I have one argument for the 1. "God" and all the rest of arguments for something else like 3. "many universes". The funny thing is the first argument weights so much that it´s in balance with the rest arguments So I have made up a personal view of universe and an official.

Quote:Our existence is based on a very precise combination of nature constants. If the density of the universe at Big Bang time were a little higher or lower, or if other constants were a little different, heavy elements and thus carbon based life could not exist. In fact 99,9..% of all possible combinations of nature constants would lead to bleak universes without stars, planets, and life.

Obviously, we exist nevertheless.

Isn't this precise combination of nature constants the evidence of a balance reached at one point in time, making it possible for us to exist? When you think about all constants as being a bit visually abstract, liquid-like all within a bottle mixed just right, like it's wine, only a good and balanced mix of all ingredients will taste good, wine also need time for it's taste to improve, all in all that 1 % would be the perfect wine? ... Somehow I see it as being inevitable, the density of the universe and other constants are relative(?), when you look at any 'circles of life', you will see one infuencing another, being dependent off another, all in all very cyclic and circular and in balance (ideal situation).

I take it the world around us is the result of the 1% of combinations that are possible, but would this be just 1 or still more than 1 possibilities? In the wine example you can have different 'constants' and (very) different tastes, but it's not impossible either to get a very similar taste with different constants, or so one would think??

@Jamie: yes.. but this life is the life we know. but, we know that there shouldn't be any life exact to ours in other planets - the life has maany forms, maybe other planets has life - different than ours, not green plants or oxygen, just somekind of..

I don't quite see what the big deal is. We don't need String Theory or an Intelligent Designer to understand this, and the idea that 99% of the time life is impossible and seeing any meaning in that is just a "momentary lapse of reason" to quote Pink Floyd. It's merely a circular argument, an illusion because we happen live in this time...put less kindly "philosophical masturbation".

How different is this from asking yourself "Had my mother and father not met, I would not be alive. Had my father procreated with another women or my mother with another man, I would not have been born and thus I would not be alive. Thus, for 100% of other combinations of human partners, they 'might' lead to another life, but certainly not 'ME'"

For most of the past time of the universe, Carbon Based (CB) life was impossible. For most of the future time of the universe, CB life will again be impossible. As a matter of fact, if the universe truly is flat and ever expanding, then as the universes age approaches infinity, the window where CB life is sustainable approaches zero, thus making this universe devoid of life and asymptotically raising the probability that life doesn't exist in this universe to 100%.

As a matter of fact, consider these other balancing acts that the universe shows us:

Is there some paradox here? For most of these rocks lifetimes, they were either unbalanced or something else. In the future, there is a 100% probability that they will become unbalanced, either directly or by erosion. Like life in this universe, like us, we just happen to live in a time where there is this balance, but we should keep in mind that this is a very narrow view of the entire history of the universe.

And I agree with Whine that this whole dicussion is grossly ethnocentric and assumes that CB life is teh only type of life. We have no way of knowing there isn't some other form of life that can evolve in the quark-gluon plasma at the birst of the universe nor can we say with certainty that life won't evolve into something else in the cold, dark ends of time.

there is no paradox there is only (yes, I'm just copying..) balance in there. In feww houndred years the balance starts shaking and it creates unbalnace and *plumbs* or any other voice (maybe *EEEEK, skreek, panic?*) when this time comes.

The "other forms of life, that ain't Carbon Based" Is shown so many ways, Fantastic Four; The golem guy, elemental beings, like firebird, icewolf or any other kind of ways. Also any kind of material can be and is a source of life, even plasma, carbon, water, lava, the sands of Mars , etc.

I strongly favor the "future theory" thing.Thinking that the nature of natural constants is justa random incident shows rather that it is not explanablecurrently why it is so. Not that they are really random combintions.

Before Newtons theory of physics, one might say, thatall these strange mechanical behaviours might also be"random laws", and it might be an anthrophic princile that wesee them this way.But with the knowledge of mechanincs we can explain allthese (everyday scale) phenomenon by simple mechanical laws.The same goes for the movement of stars/planets beforethe knowledge of Keplers laws.

I rather think that there is a simple, yet unknow"theory of everything" (Weltformel).And all these physical constants can be derived from it.And that there are/where no other combinations of it.

Take this mind-game:

Even if there where a universe with differentnatural constants, take any combination (like strength ofgraviation)

No matter what combination, one think would be allways thesame:

The logic of mathematics!1+1=2 will allways be the same, in any "combination" universe. (and more complex equasions of course)

I think that this constancy is a proof of"the one main formula"

BTW, if there where a god, he would nothave the power to change everything, as he could notchange principle logics/mathematics.